Israel’s vibrant – though embattled – democracy was on display Monday
at Tel Aviv University in all its glory. Dozens of students –
Palestinian and Jewish – articulated their belief that the events
surrounding the creation of the State of Israel were a “Nakba,”
Arabic for catastrophe, after receiving authorization from Tel Aviv
University President Joseph Klafter.

Participants heard the reading of a poem by the late Palestinian poet
Mahmoud Darwish, observed a moment of silence and – in a clear
attempt to reach out to Jewish students by “Judaizing” the ceremony –
recited a version of the “Yizkor” prayer, traditionally read in
synagogues and other Jewish memorial events for the deceased.

The ceremony strengthens the argument – made by this paper’s
editorial board –that the so-called “Nakba Law” does not violate the
freedom of assembly or the freedom of expression of Israeli citizens –
Arab or Jewish. Though the legislation, passed in March 2011, has
been grossly misrepresented in the press, what it actually says is
very reasonable.

Essentially an amendment to Finance Ministry funding directives, the
Nakba Law empowers the finance minister to stop state budgeting of
organizations, institutions, municipalities or other bodies that use
Israeli taxpayers’ money to fund activities that have the goal of
undermining the very moral foundations of the State of Israel.

As a Jewish state, Israel cannot be expected to use taxpayers’ money
to perpetuate a Palestinian narrative of victimization that
intentionally distorts reality in order to delegitimize Zionism.
After all, Palestinian suffering was the result of the extremist
Palestinian leadership’s rejection of the 1947 UN General Assembly’s
partition plan and the foolish decision by figures such as the anti-
Semitic Haj Amin al-Husseini to launch a war against the fledgling
Jewish state. Short of lying down and dying and trashing aspirations
for national self-determination, there was little Jews could have
done to prevent Palestinian suffering.

Still, as a democracy, Israel has an obligation to protect the right
of Palestinians to commemorate their history, regardless how
distorted and counterproductive to peace it might be.

The Nakba Law maintains that delicate balance. Organizers and
university administrators were careful to adhere to the strictures of
the Nakba Law, which forbid the university to use state money to fund
anti-Israel activities.

Tel Aviv University did not take part in funding of the Nakba Day
ceremonies. Organizers had to foot the bill for expenses such as
security guards and decorations. But by permitting the ceremony to be
held on campus, the university’s president was reaffirming the
democratic principles of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.

Back in January, Adalah, the legal center for Arab minority rights in
Israel, and the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, as well as
several Jewish and Arab citizens, petitioned the Supreme Court
against the law. The Supreme Court rejected the petition, arguing
that it was still too early to determine whether the law contradicted
principles of equal rights.

“The questions that this law raises will only become clear with its
implementation,” the justices noted in their decision. Judging from
the way it was applied at Tel Aviv University, the Nakba Law manages
to prevent the inappropriate use of state funds without curtailing
basic human rights.

Unfortunately, there were those who did not appreciate the Nakba
Law’s careful balancing of Israel’s Jewish and democratic ideals.
Education Minister Gideon Sa’ar reportedly attempted to convince
Klafter to “reconsider” his decision allowing the event. Meanwhile,
Tel Aviv University’s Student Union claimed that out of respect for
the feelings of students on campus, the Nakba Day celebration should
be canceled.

This attempt to stifle free speech did little more than draw
inordinate attention to an event attended by a small number of people
representing a minority of Israelis.

As for the participants in the Nakba Day commemorations, would it be
too much to ask that along with the mourning over the “catastrophe”
they recognize some of the good as well?